George McGovern was an honorable public servant during a dishonorable era of political scoundrels. And on his worst day, he was still a far better man than Richard Nixon could ever even hope to be at his very best.

"I think a lot of this campaign, maybe over the last four years, has been devoted to this notion that I think government creates jobs, that that somehow is the answer."

From his reporting on the ground, [the NYT's David] Kirkpatrick says this basically wasn't al Qaeda. He says the attack wasn't preplanned to coincide with September 11. And he says the attack probably was a reaction to that tragically stupid video.

Kirkpatrick could be wrong, of course. But those findings fly in the face of things which have been widely said.

I note that, myself included,

• Trek Bicycles
  
• Giro (bike helmets)
  
• FRS (energy products)
  
• Honey Stinger (energy products)
  
• 24 Hour Fitness
  
• Anheuser-Busch (Michelob Ultra)
  
• RadioShack

It seems obvious that Ahmed Abu Khattala was the leader and attacker that was identified and reported as the known entity in the press from the beginning.  But Ansar al-Shariah is very fractured so how did this particular attack spring up?  How organized and planned was it?  These are all legit questions that need to be answered before our President goes rattling off at the mouth during a venomous election.

If the President ever said that Ansar al-Shariah was Al Qaeda though he would be attacked for that, because it is very unclear whether they are or not.  Perhaps at best it can only be said that some of them consider themselves Al Qaeda affiliated, therefore how can that make the attack on the consulate an Al Qaeda attack if the members of Ansar al-Shariah fight among themselves if they are Al Qaeda affiliated or not?

Are they terrorists?  If the President had called Benghazi a terrorist attack he would have been attacked for it because calling Ansar al-Shariah terrorists is like calling Hezbollah terrorists, same arguments an issues would follow.